| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TreasuredLocks
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jul 2003
Posts: 55
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: Natural Hair Discrimination in the Military |
 |
|
On our blog, we wrote a post concerning the plight of Kim, in particular, and many Black female military personnel in general. That concerns regulation that bans dreadlocks for female military personnel. Kim's hair is neat, clean and professional and seemed to be fine with her commanding officers until recently. Kim is being forced to either cut off her hair, wear a wig or get a perm to comply with military regulations.
You can read about Kim's situation here- Natural Hair Discrimination in the Military. Please leave a comment on the blog and write to your representatives, if you're so inclined. If you'd like to ask any questions or talk about this in detail, this is the place. You'll need to register to post. Let us know if you have any problems with that process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TreasuredLocks
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jul 2003
Posts: 55
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
We received this comment via email:
| Quote: |
The military has to have standards and we civilians should not meddle in things that we know little about. If you start allowing one style why not mohawks, afros, etc? Some folks find those to be attractive also. |
We completely understand the military's need for standards. They want people serving to look neat, clean, professional and somewhat "uniform". There is a need from both an appearance and functional point of view. For example, the airman must be able to wear protective gear over their hair. They don't want distracting or "faddish" hairstyles. But...
Afros used to be banned. After the military was asked to reconsider, they are no longer banned. Same thing with cornrows. Same thing with braids and microbraids.
Usually, the people who write the military regs have no clue about African-American hair. Sometimes, when they are educated, they realized the standards they set are too restrictive. The guidelines are the style is supposed to be neat and professional. Kim's hair is. The guidelines state the hair is not supposed to be "faddish". Kim's hair is not. Kim's hair would be allowed had her commander not found out her twists are actually locked, which makes zero difference in their appearance or in how they impact her performing her duty.
White people tend to not understand the challenges involved with managing natural black hair. Comments are made to black women that they should simply "wash" the locks out of their hair. It's as if the White people in charge think of a Black woman's hair in cornrows the same as a White woman's hair and that it's simply a matter of fashion. The woman is expected to wash the cornrows or twists out and put the hair back in a bun. Black women's hair (most anyway) doesn't work that way. In our case, braids (which used to be banned), locks, twists, etc. were invented as much as a matter of necessity for hair management as for style.
We are asking the military to reconsider their ban on dreadlocks which is probably based on an outdated and ignorant view that dreadlocks are dirty and unkempt and that they are simply a fashion choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jillian
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: Dreadlocks are not authorized?? AFI23- |
|
|
I just have to say that I am more than thrilled and saddened at the same time about Kim's situation. I am thrilled because I am also a member of the AirForce, who came in with locs but was forced to CUT them off while I was in basic training due to the new AirForceInstruction. Now I wear my hair low cut, all even with waves. I refuse to put chemicals into my hair ever again and i won't grow it back out unless I can loc it. Now one year later my supervisor prints out the Regulation and "cousels" me on the section that states "females may not have shaved heads" the minimum requirment is AT LEAST one inch and the max in bulk is 3 inches, in other words, now that they've made me cut it all off they've backed me into a corner with a MINIMUM and a MAXIMUM length requirment if my hair is to be worn NATURALLY! Check out the reg, it's posted on this site. This is ridiculous. Other people of other races are allowed to wear their hair the way it naturally grows as long as it is in a neat and professional manner....WHY CAN'T WE? Is this or is this not discrimination?? Is it because I'm black? Do they feel threatened by the way we NAURALLY are?? Oh..it's ok to wear a perm right? because its closer to the way other races usually wear their hair right? Well what if White ppl and all others' hair grew out in coils? And our hair grew out straight and flat?? Then what would it be like? Would it be okay then? OH NO, or would we be then forced to come up with another chemical that coils the hair, so that our natural hair state (straight and flat hypothetically speaking) would not be considered "FADDISH". And What the heck is faddish defined as anyway?? Webster says that it is "A custom style that many ppl are interested in, for a short period of time" But hey maybe our hair has only been growing this way for a short period of time...SMH.These questions may sound ignorant to some but come on! I'd like to get to the bottom of it. I've tried taking this up the chain of command but they're all brainwashed with "AirForce Instruction" and the ones that maybe still have a mind of their own are too freakin' afraid to help me or point me in the right direction.It just makes me so angry. I just made 23 a week ago...I'm black..on my own in a foregin country..and I'm only an A1C (two stripes). Noone will listen. This all started happening a few days ago...and got online to do a little research to back myself up as I dive in for a career threatening battle against something that I feel very strongly about, I came across this website with Kim's story. If there are any supporters, PLEASE do all that you can to help...I am sure there are many more who felt they had to comply (as if they were wrong) or simply didnt want the battle. If anyone has any advice for me.. PLEASE I am all ears.  
Peace
Jyll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BellaVega
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After looking at her hair from the blog post, I can't understand how her hair is against regulations? It seems perfectly fine, neat and in fact, quite beautiful. I think there are many things that need to change in the military, this being one of them.
_________________
Bella Vega, HSA health insurance Advisor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
